Why the Chemtrail Conspiracy is Unplausible, and Meteorologically Innacurate

page: 35
43
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaspar Hauser
There is no such word as UNplausible. The correct word is IMplausible


Sorry

You must be part of the Grammar police force

And my flight from this morning



1007.0 30 28.8 24.5 78 19.67 205 5 301.4 359.6 304.9
1000.0 90 27.2 22.3 75 17.28 215 8 300.4 351.2 303.4
991.0 170 26.4 23.0 82 18.22 201 8 300.3 354.0 303.6
971.0 350 25.4 22.0 81 17.48 168 6 301.1 352.7 304.2
964.0 414 27.6 10.6 35 8.39 156 6 303.9 329.3 305.4
954.0 506 28.2 10.2 33 8.25 140 6 305.4 330.6 306.9
925.0 779 26.4 8.4 32 7.53 90 4 306.3 329.4 307.7
910.8 914 25.3 7.9 33 7.40 90 6 306.6 329.3 307.9
879.6 1219 22.9 6.9 35 7.12 105 10 307.1 329.1 308.4
878.0 1235 22.8 6.8 36 7.11 104 10 307.2 329.1 308.5
850.0 1516 20.2 6.2 40 7.04 90 14 307.3 329.1 308.6
849.2 1524 20.1 6.2 40 7.04 90 14 307.3 329.0 308.6
798.0 2056 14.8 4.8 51 6.80 94 17 307.1 328.1 308.4
790.7 2134 14.5 2.4 44 5.77 95 18 307.7 325.6 308.7
765.0 2413 13.6 -6.4 24 3.11 95 24 309.6 319.6 310.1
736.0 2737 10.8 -2.2 40 4.44 95 31 309.9 324.1 310.8
735.5 2743 10.8 -2.4 40 4.39 95 31 310.0 324.0 310.8
708.9 3048 8.9 -10.9 24 2.36 90 22 311.1 319.0 311.6
700.0 3153 8.2 -13.8 19 1.89 95 19 311.5 317.9 311.9
677.0 3428 6.8 -20.2 13 1.14 103 14 313.0 316.9 313.2
658.4 3658 7.9 -28.7 5 0.55 110 10 316.7 318.7 316.8
650.0 3763 8.4 -32.6 4 0.38 110 10 318.4 319.9 318.5
634.4 3962 7.6 -31.3 4 0.44 110 10 319.7 321.3 319.8
611.3 4267 6.3 -29.4 6 0.55 135 14 321.6 323.7 321.7
593.0 4516 5.2 -27.8 7 0.66 135 19 323.2 325.6 323.3
588.9 4572 4.7 -27.6 7 0.68 135 20 323.2 325.7 323.3
559.0 4994 0.8 -26.2 11 0.81 135 20 323.5 326.5 323.6
504.0 5817 -5.1 -35.1 7 0.39 135 19 326.0 327.5 326.1
500.0 5880 -5.3 -37.3 6 0.31 135 19 326.5 327.7 326.6
458.0 6565 -8.3 -46.3 3 0.13 135 20 331.1 331.6 331.1
400.0 7600 -15.9 -51.9 3 0.08 135 22 334.2 334.6 334.2
382.6 7925 -18.1 -52.7 3 0.08 135 22 335.6 335.9 335.6
352.1 8534 -22.3 -54.2 4 0.07 110 31 337.9 338.2 338.0
324.0 9144 -26.6 -55.7 5 0.06 95 30 340.3 340.6 340.3
313.0 9398 -28.3 -56.3 5 0.06 102 28 341.2 341.5 341.2
308.0 9513 -28.7 -41.7 28 0.32 105 27 342.2 343.6 342.3
300.0 9700 -30.7 -39.7 41 0.41 110 26 342.0 343.6 342.1
298.0 9748 -31.1 -39.1 45 0.44 111 26 342.1 343.9 342.2
272.8 10363 -35.9 -47.0 31 0.20 125 26 343.8 344.7 343.9
250.0 10970 -40.7 -54.7 21 0.09 105 22 345.4 345.8 345.4
247.0 11052 -41.1 -56.1 18 0.08 102 21 346.0 346.4 346.0
217.8 11887 -48.3 -58.4 30 0.07 75 13 347.6 347.9 347.6
208.0 12192 -51.0 -59.3 36 0.06 75 13 348.0 348.3 348.0
201.0 12418 -52.9 -59.9 42 0.06 84 10 348.3 348.6 348.4
200.0 12450 -53.1 -59.1 48 0.07 85 10 348.5 348.8 348.5
198.5 12497 -53.5 -59.8 46 0.06 90 9 348.6 348.9 348.6
176.0 13261 -59.9 -71.9 19 0.01 78 17 350.3 350.4 350.3
155.5 14021 -66.3 65 26 352.1 352.1
150.0 14240 -68.1 80 20 352.6 352.6
146.0 14402 -69.7 84 20 352.5 352.5
140.5 14630 -71.4 90 19 353.5 353.5
135.0 14867 -73.1 98 22 354.5 354.5
133.4 14935 -73.6 100 23 354.9 354.9
119.9 15545 -77.7 90 38 358.3 358.3
113.6 15850 -79.8 100 29 360.0 360.0
107.8 16154 -81.8 115 26 361.6 361.6
100.0 16580 -84.7 110 27 363.8 363.8




posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by C-JEAN
 


Well apparently...


But a major report from the National Academies says bees and other important pollinators are losing out to development and disease.


Seems like development and disease are the major issue here, rather than the deliberate poisoning.

As important as bees are, if it were deliberate poisoning with pesticides, it wouldnt only be the bees dying, it would be almost everything

www.npr.org...



Wrong. Bees are dying to what is being called "Colony Collapse Disorder/syndrome", of which the cause is UNKNOWN.



Upon recognition that the syndrome does not seem to be seasonally-restricted, and that it may not be a "disease" in the standard sense — that there may not be a specific causative agent — the syndrome was renamed.[16]

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 21 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by italkyoulisten
 


Ok, thats cool

I just used a different source to what you used, and this was what I found. Either way chemtrails are not responsible



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 12:13 AM
link   
Funny though how chemtrail believers have not yet explained how refraction from cirrus means spraying. The sprinkler rainbow chemtrail video was most humorous though.

And up to page 35 without a photo of a chemplane yet.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 


Great post and good read! I have to agree with the OP on this one. After reading countless posts on the topic, this was refreshing and enlightening. One of the first in depth scientific explanations I've seen on here in a long time. Kudos to you Oz! keep it up!




posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by R. Shackleford
 


Thanks for that

Looks like this thread may be coming to a close, still without my original post even challenged

You missed all the fun



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by OzWeatherman
 

OzWeatherman...like I said before, thanks for your patient & thorough approach to this topic. This has been a very interesting thread. It is a pity to think that so many people are so worried about chemtrails, when there is no real evidence chemtrails exist. It really does appear to dominate the thinking of some people. Perhaps you've helped to allay the fears of one or two of them.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
Chemtrails... haha... i was watching an episode of the simpsons last night, where a skyrider was going to write a message in the sky for Apu, and Homer pointed out the sarin cannister. 'just surplus from the peace corps'. Loved it



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 

That sprinkler video is stupid.
That doesn't mean I'm stupid, does it?

If the chemtrails are spread via military planes
how are we supposed to take a pic?
(The military probably houses them near the black, unmarked helicopters BTW.)



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by purehughness
Chemtrails... haha... i was watching an episode of the simpsons last night, where a skyrider was going to write a message in the sky for Apu, and Homer pointed out the sarin cannister. 'just surplus from the peace corps'. Loved it


So do you believe that our air being filled with particulates is on purpose or due to our booming manufacturing industries?lol



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by visible_villain
I've posted twice in this thread early on, the first time here.

The reason I made that post the way I did is that I have a lot of difficulty believing there's still any question about this issue.

As I have mentioned in other threads here at ATS, I live in Ann Arbor, MI, USA, and we've got nearly constant chem-trail activity almost everyday, although today there's only been a few. My sister lives 90 miles east of here, and when we go and visit her it's going on over there too.

I mean it's obvious!.

Like so obvious that at a barbeque last summer I noticed up in the sky, probably at cruising altitude, two jet-liners, both moving in the same direction, more or less, and separated by about 10 or 15-degrees of arc. One was putting out a major chem-trail, while the other one was putting out a regular, old normal con-trail, the kind that disappears after a few minutes ...



Did you consider that they were at different altitudes? Different kinds of engines can make a difference too. But dont fall into the chemtrail believer trap of seeing everything in 2-D and assuming everyplane up in the sky is flying at the exact same altitude.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies

Originally posted by purehughness
Chemtrails... haha... i was watching an episode of the simpsons last night, where a skyrider was going to write a message in the sky for Apu, and Homer pointed out the sarin cannister. 'just surplus from the peace corps'. Loved it


So do you believe that our air being filled with particulates is on purpose or due to our booming manufacturing industries?lol


Well increased contrails are due to increased air travel, but the main source of pollution is closer to ground


www.nasa.gov...

www.rrcap.unep.org...

www.abc.net.au...

That's what we should be worrying about!



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
Well increased contrails are due to increased air travel, but the main source of pollution is closer to ground

Increased air travel? Yeah, right...


Planes Grounded As Air Travel Nosedives
12:31pm UK, Wednesday February 25, 2009

More than a tenth of the world's jet airliners have been grounded and put in storage because of the recession.

Aviation consultancy Ascend said 2,300 of the global airline fleet of 20,293 jet airliners were now in storage.

Some 1,167 of them were grounded last year.

It is the worst year for world aviation since 2001 when the 9/11 attacks and subsequent slump in air travel led to 13% of planes being sidelined.

Ascend said that since mid-2008, European carriers had parked more than 450 aircraft, with North American airlines storing nearly 800 and Asia-Pacific carriers putting at least 230 temporarily out of service.

What lame excuse will they use next?



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Clearskies
reply to post by firepilot
 

That sprinkler video is stupid.
That doesn't mean I'm stupid, does it?

If the chemtrails are spread via military planes
how are we supposed to take a pic?
(The military probably houses them near the black, unmarked helicopters BTW.)



Last I checked, there are lots of photos of military aircraft online, so military aircraft are not invisible to cameras. They do have to take off and land just like any other kind of airplane. Have any chemtrail believer ever even TRIED to photograph anything coming into airports or bases? And what planes are at military bases is not secret, you can find out easily what aircraft can be found. You can even go to google earth and go look at most any base you want, especially US bases.

But a lot of chemtrail believers think its airliners and cargo planes, some say its UFO, or Orbs flown by reptilian space aliens. Which in itself is damning of "chemtrails", since there is no single belief, but it is a catch-all for most anything. I have seen on internet message boards when chemtrail people would argue with each other over whose chemtrail idea is correct, and they would eventually just call each other government shills.


[edit on 22-3-2009 by firepilot]



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
By the way it's implausible, not unplausible. Proper spelling aides credibility in many cases, especially when you're a meteorologist.



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by se7en30
By the way it's implausible, not unplausible. Proper spelling aides credibility in many cases, especially when you're a meteorologist.


From Websters...

UNPLAUSIBLE, a. s as z. Not plausible; not having a fair appearance; as arguments not unplausible.

Other online dictionaries I checked also say that unplausible is an accepted alternative to implausible.

:-P



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by weedwhacker
 


All good points and I totally agree that you could not diperse biological agents through a civil airliners exhaust with out killing the bio hazard .

Paradoxically , as I have stated before , particulate exhaust both from aircraft and industrial pollution is having a shading effect on the worst effects of global warming . Not all the reasons for global warming are the result of carbon dioxide .Its a cycle that we would go through regardeless.

so in a very real sense , some pollutants are buying you time .

What I am trying to do is medaite here with a bit of non technical common sense becasue the issue is far more complex than most people realise .

The war for the worlds dwindling resources is while thankfully not fully hot yet , slowly coming to the boil.

As the latest james bond film strongly and correctly hinted at ,WATER NOT OIL is the most valuable resource .Its no accident that bond is driving a hydrogen powered ford at the end of the movie.

With the appropriate technology ,and this I was told by a very high ranking airforce relative, The hydrogen oxygen bond can be broken with very low energy input , making it the fuel of the twenty first centrury .It has to be because oil is running out and its killing the planet .

The old order is litterally being burnt away as new technologies threaten to overwrite the old oil cartel and their energy monopoly.

Its the same with aviation tech ,my friend , and you know it because youve been asking around and youve heard the muttered rumours I am sure.

Cern is not just a particle accelerator .It will be manafacturing already , high energy density permanent magnetic materials for the next gen magnet runners.

Mags are already widely deployed in the RAAF in many formats . Unshielded ,they cause null zones over the sights were they are buried for on base power generation .

So look, I dont judge you for beeing a relatively mild proffesional polluter ! I drive a car too. The primitive tech pisses me off but hey i'm stuck in civvy world now so I have to go with whats available .

Bio weapon deployement would be done by specially modified craft , just as was agent orange .

This planet is being monitored to stop the worst excesses of your governements . They also lay out chem sometimes in order to detect our cloaked craft .

Now if your head is stuck in the sand about cloaking tech I suggest you do an internet search because the british army has already boasted about its main battle tanks ability to become 'invisible '.

Its no secret around here that army regularly train with cloaking camo . Welcome to the twenty first century dubya dubya ,cos you aint seen nothin' yet !

Whats the betting I will be censored AGAIN for expanding the interest in this thread. Ah well....



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by OzWeatherman

Originally posted by reconpilot
I remember watching all the contrails over Geneva airport last time we went skiing . Some of it just looked a little bit sticky and oily to me .
And you know even small percentages of unburnt or partially burnt fuel/oil is going to leave particulates . You really cannot deny that.


Perhaps that would be due the extremely high density of European and other airlines in the region. Switzerland is a high traffic area.



What Im saying is there are many degrees between pure innocent con and climate management through a bit of smoke generation. If it reduces global temps or at least keep it in check , you will at least get one or two more seasons in Zermatt .


Are you saying smoke will warm the temperature of the earth, causing the snow caps to melt?

Please clarify



Yes ,geneva airport is a busy place, its winter ,its cold ,its high altitude .
And because of global warming ,the ski resorts are starting to see the effects . Less snow ,shorter season , land slides as permafrost melts ,stuff like that .

My problem with you OZ is not your lack of competence in your specialised expertise .My problem is your need to deny in areas where you do not have the credentials to do so. And if you did you would not be able to talk about it .

I have sat in the garden with a retired pilot while we looked up. He turned to me and said, "thats not a regular contrail" . Nope ,I replied ,sure does not look like one to me either . 'Must be soapy rain I guess' .

You are not ,regardeless of wether you like to admit or not able to say with ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY that their is no chemical modification of our atmosphere going on. Anymore than you can say you KNOW BEYOND DOUBT that the RAAF does not have advanced antigrav type craft .

you cant mate ,because you are not so qualified . like it or not ,you dont have the security clearance or need to know.

ACCEPT IT .

Sure a lot of these chem conspiracy guys get carried away and paranoid .but you know ,when the truth is witheld from people and the gov lies to them all the time ,you can hardly blame for getting over excited sometimes.

I have done what little I can get away with saying to give people a broader picture of whats happening. To do that you have to explain HIGHLY ADVANCED CLASSIFIED TECH .

Smoke is a very broad brush description that can be wildly misrepresented ,so dont ask entraping questions . You are trying to confine and shut down the debate by making unreasonable requests from people who are ham strung by official secrets. You insist of polarising the debate so it cannnot inform people . You narrow it to your specialism when the reality goes WAY BEYOND your scope and expertise .

You know that .



posted on Mar, 22 2009 @ 11:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Increased air travel? Yeah, right...



Planes Grounded As Air Travel Nosedives
12:31pm UK, Wednesday February 25, 2009

More than a tenth of the world's jet airliners have been grounded and put in storage because of the recession.

Aviation consultancy Ascend said 2,300 of the global airline fleet of 20,293 jet airliners were now in storage.

Some 1,167 of them were grounded last year.

It is the worst year for world aviation since 2001 when the 9/11 attacks and subsequent slump in air travel led to 13% of planes being sidelined.

Ascend said that since mid-2008, European carriers had parked more than 450 aircraft, with North American airlines storing nearly 800 and Asia-Pacific carriers putting at least 230 temporarily out of service.


What lame excuse will they use next?


In January 1996, there were 634,343,000 scheduled passenger revenue departures. It hit a high of 953,883,000 in August 2004. It hasn't gone below 779,332,000 since that high. In December of 2008 there were 786,208,000 scheduled departures.

There are more planes being grounded, but there are more planes in service. Air travel has grown exponentially. From 1954 to 1980 it went from 3 million revenue departures, to 5 million revenue departures. From 1981 to 2007, it went from 5 million to over 11 million revenue departures. So while they're grounding 10% of planes, that's 10% of fleets that are much larger than they have ever been. They are talking about grounding 400 planes in 2009, but Boeing and Airbus will be DELIVERING 1000.

[edit on 3/22/2009 by Zaphod58]





new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 32  33  34    36  37 >>

log in

join